Legal Library

On July
13, 2017, the Tax Court, in Grecian Magnesite, Industrial & Shipping
Co., SA v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 3 (2017), rejected Rev. Rul. 91-32, 1991-1
C.B. 107, and held that a non-US partner’s gain on the disposition of its
interest in a partnership that conducted a US trade or business (USTB) was
generally not subject to US tax. This decision has significant implications for
non-US partners in US entities classified as partnerships for US tax purposes.

The Tax Court held that a
non-US partner’s gain on the disposition of its interest in a partnership
was not attributable to the US office of the partnership and therefore not
US-source income, but rather such gain was non-effectively connected,
foreign-source income and thus not subject to US tax.

In so ruling, the Tax Court
rejected the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) 26-year position,
articulated in Rev. Rul. 91-32, that a non-US partner’s gain on the
disposition of its interest in a partnership that conducts a USTB is
effectively connected income with such USTB to the extent a sale of the
underlying assets would give rise to effectively connected income.

The Tax Court applied the
“entity” rather than the “aggregate” approach, finding that, subject to
certain statutory exceptions, the US Tax Code treats the disposition of a
partnership interest as the sale of an interest in the partnership rather
than the sale of a pro-rata share of the partnership’s underlying assets.

Grecian
Magnesite Mining, a Greek corporation (GMM), owned an interest in Premier
Chemicals LLC, a Delaware limited liability company classified as a partnership
for US income tax purposes (Premier). Premier conducted a trade or business in
the United States. In 2008, Premier fully redeemed GMM’s interest in Premier
for $10.6 million. GMM realized a gain of $6.2 million on the redemption,
approximately $2.2 million of which was attributable to Premier’s US real
estate.

The
parties agreed that, although the gain arose as a result of Premier’s
redemption of GMM’s interest in Premier, such gain was nonetheless treated as
gain from the sale of GMM’s interest in Premier and therefore governed by
section 741, which would characterize GMM’s gain as “gain or loss from the sale
or exchange of a capital asset” (subject to section 751). The parties also
agreed that, under section 897(g), which provides a special look-through rule
applicable to dispositions of interests in partnerships that hold US real
property, the $2.2 million of gain attributable to US real property interests
was subject to US tax. At issue in Grecian Magnesite was whether the
remaining $4 million of gain was subject to US tax (the Disputed Gain).

The IRS
argued, based on its position in Rev. Rul. 91-32, that the Disputed Gain should
be treated as effectively connected income and, as such, subject to US tax. In
Rev. Rul. 91-32, the IRS asserted that a non-US partner’s gain on the
disposition of its interest in a US partnership should be analyzed on an
“aggregate” basis and, to the extent the assets of the partnership would give
rise to effectively connected income if sold by the partnership, the non-US
partner’s pro-rata share of such gain should be treated as effectively connected
income. The Tax Court found the technical analysis in Rev. Rul. 91-32 to be
deficient and, noting that the ruling “lacks the power to persuade,” rejected
the IRS position. The Tax Court declined to provide “appropriate deference” to
Rev. Rul. 91-32 as argued by the IRS.

The Tax
Court found section 741—providing that gain or loss on the disposition of a
partnership interest is gain or loss from the disposition of a capital asset—to
be an application of the “entity” approach. In this respect, the Tax Court discussed
the legislative history of section 741, which represents a codification of a
substantial body of case law in which the courts have overwhelmingly ruled that
a sale of a partnership interest would be respected as such and would not be
treated as a sale of a ratable share of the underlying assets. See, e.g.,
United States v. Shapiro, 178 F.2d 459 (8th Cir. 1949).

The Tax
Court found further support for its conclusion that the Disputed Gain was
properly analyzed as gain from the disposition of a single item of personal
property (i.e., a partnership interest) rather than a deemed disposition
of a pro-rata share of Premier’s assets by citing to specific statutory
exceptions providing for an “aggregate” approach, such as the look-through
rules under section 897(g) and section 751 (addressing unrealized receivables
and inventory). While the Tax Court noted the statutory exceptions apply an
“aggregate” approach, it found no basis for an extra-statutory application of
the “aggregate” approach in light of the unambiguous language of section 741.

The Tax
Court, having determined the Disputed Gain to be from a disposition of a single
item of personal property, then analyzed whether the Disputed Gain was subject
to US tax. Ordinarily, gain from the disposition of personal property by a
non-US person would be foreign-source income under section 865. However, the
IRS argued that the Disputed Gain should be treated as attributable to
Premier’s US office and, as such, under the “US office” exception to the default
rule of section 865, treated as US-source income subject to US tax. The Tax
Court rejected this argument, and applied Treas. Reg. § 1.864-6(b), finding
that Premier’s US office was not a “material factor” in the Disputed Gain and
that the Disputed Gain did not arise in the “ordinary course of business” but
rather was an “extraordinary event.” Accordingly, the Tax Court held that the
Disputed Gain was non-effectively connected, foreign-source income and thus not
subject to US tax.

Rev. Rul. 91-32 has long been criticized by
practitioners as inconsistent with the unambiguous language of section 741, and
its rejection in Grecian Magnesite is significant. The ultimate
implications of Grecian Magnesite will depend on whether the case is
appealed and, if so, on the result of any appeal. A legislative response is
always possible and, indeed, the Obama administration proposed codifying Rev.
Rul. 91-32 on a number of occasions. The Trump administration has yet to
address this issue.

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

Contact Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP - Washington Office

Choose Area of Practice Area of Practice is requiredFirst Name First Name is requiredLast Name Last Name is requiredE-mail Address E-mail Address is requiredInvalid E-mail Address

Describe Your Legal Matter

0/1000 characters

Describe Your Legal Matter is required

Country Country is requiredZip CodeZip Code is requiredInvalid Zip CodeCity/Town/Locality City/Town/Locality is requiredState/Province/DistrictState/Province/District is requiredPhone Number Phone Number is requiredInvalid Phone Number Preferred Contact Method

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

CONSUMER WEBSITES

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by the use of this site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.